• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
shuttlt said:
It's so obvious that I feel silly pointing it out, but surely this argument goes both ways? Perhaps there is some pathological reason why you are convinced of their innocence?
Click to expand...

Sophism, and you should feel silly.

You cannot get away with trying to 'pathologise' peoples' belief that AK and RS are innocent people, that it is WRONG that they are in prison (>> and doing what they can to remedy it).

On the other hand, it is very difficult to understand what would motivate someone who expends an equal amount of time and effort trying to keep them imprisoned. That could quite easily be seen as pathological behaviour.
 
Last edited:
Halides 1. I think that what you are trying to say is "Why should the appeals court put any confidence in a report that displays reasoning different to my own?"
 
shuttlt said:
No, I agree, something like a bleach receipt, if it existed, would come out in the court documents that have been officially released. Having said that, that process didn't reveal the contents of her "confession", or indeed many other documents and photographs in a way that we could pick over them and form our own opinion.
Click to expand...

Both of her "confession" statements are available, despite being excluded from the trial by the Supreme Court. What we don't have is the transcript or recording of the actual interrogation that produced those statements.

And it's not because Charlie or Bruce refused to release them.

I have enough data to form an opinion that miscarriage of justice occurred. To change that opinion would require something of such a caliber that I seriously doubt it could be still hidden.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, two young innocent people suffer through their fourth Christmas in jail for the crime they didn't commit.
 
Last edited:
Supernaut said:
Sophism, and you should feel silly.

You cannot get away with trying to 'pathologise' peoples' belief that AK and RS are innocent people, that it is WRONG that they are in prison (>> and doing what they can to remedy it).

On the other hand, it is very difficult to understand what would motivate someone who expends an equal amount of time and effort trying to keep them imprisoned. That could quite easily be seen as pathological behaviour.
Click to expand...
I think it would be pathological to suppose that you or I are having an impact on the odds of Amanda remaining in prison. What do you think you are doing that is having an impact on her future? For myself I'm here because I enjoy the thread, nothing more.
 
Katody Matrass said:
Both of her "confession" statements are available, despite being excluded from the trial by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Yes, but both the prosecution the court and FOA had those documents for ages before we got to see them. Without being able to see them, we would have had to rely on peoples word for what the contained.

Katody Matrass said:
What we don't have is the transcript or recording of the actual interrogation that produced that statements.
Click to expand...
So, what's the argument? The refused to release stuff first?

Katody Matrass said:
And it's not because Charlie or Bruce refused to release them.
Click to expand...
If there was no evidence of police brutality, would they release them, if they existed?

Katody Matrass said:
I have enough data to form an opinion that miscarriage of justice occurred. To change that opinion would require something of such a caliber that I seriously doubt it could be still hidden.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, two young innocent people suffer through their fourth Christmas in jail for the crime they didn't commit.
Click to expand...
We'll have to agree to differ. My confidence of their guilt is clearly far weaker than your confidence in their innocence though.
 
shuttlt said:
So, what's the argument? The refused to release stuff first?
Click to expand...
They obviously tend not to disclose anything that would put the investigation in bad light. Plenty of it is already public, but not the DNA data nor the interrogation tapes.
The idea that Charlie or Bruce keeps something shady or incriminating that Italians somehow forgot to release doesn't hold.


If there was no evidence of police brutality, would they release them, if they existed?
Click to expand...
I think so. The fragments when Amanda breaks down would be on TV days after.
 
reasonable doubt versus proof of innocence

shuttlt said:
I'm sure lots of things would, but, off the top of my head, an alibi would probably do it.
Click to expand...

shuttlt,

If you mean an unimpeachable alibi, then what you are asking for is proof of innocence. I find it odd under these circumstances that you seemed so unconcerned about the Stardust file yesterday.

I think that a more interesting question is what would move you and others from beyond a reasonable doubt to reasonable doubt or more than reasonable doubt.
 
christianahannah said:
I can state that when Charlie says something I believe him. He has never denied me a request and if he doesn't have something he says so.

He and I may disagree on some points but I have not found it to doubt his word. He has made information available to those who want a mature discussion of the case and who are searching for the truth.

As far as the November 7 memorial, I think it may have to do with page 5 of the diary which is linked on Candace Dempsey's blog. Amanda talks about meeting with a nun and then a writing down of facts which came to her memory after the nun left.
Click to expand...

Thank you Christiana.

I have page five of the diary, but it has been discussed extensively. Basically this is the part in which Amanda writes about how she has thought it over and clearly remembers the night of the murder.
 
Mary_H said:
He might have just expressed to the police during his interrogation that he now realized he had mistakenly believed Amanda.
Click to expand...

This is from his 11/11/07 diary entry:

Instead I had information that on the morning of Friday, when I was sleeping and Amanda went to take a shower at her home, she had gone also with an Argentinian guy ... I suppose, in a laundry and that this here wedged in the washing machine the clothes including the blue Nike shoes ... (PMF transl)

My guess is the police interrogators worked to impress Raffaele that Amanda was playing around behind his back and using him as a cover for her wicked deeds. The seed of disloyalty grows quickly, and it’s not surprising to hear that Raffaele began to doubt where Amanda was when she was not by his side.
 
Supernaut said:
Sophism, and you should feel silly.

You cannot get away with trying to 'pathologise' peoples' belief that AK and RS are innocent people, that it is WRONG that they are in prison (>> and doing what they can to remedy it).

On the other hand, it is very difficult to understand what would motivate someone who expends an equal amount of time and effort trying to keep them imprisoned. That could quite easily be seen as pathological behaviour.
Click to expand...

I know. I've never spent any time degrading another person. I don't even believe that I've said more than a sentence or two about each of the notorious serial killers - may they rot in hell. I don't get my jollies that way.
 
shuttlt said:
But the jury selection is very different to the selection of people like ourselves who choose to post day after day on the same issue. It could be that, were we to randomly choose 12 people off the streets of Seattle, stick them on a jury and retry the case, they would convict. Or it could be that they would acquit. You really can't make any kind of judgement on this by comments posted on the internet.
Click to expand...


Jury selection is a very important part of the politics of justice. I have wondered how it came to be that a randomly selected jury ended up with 5 middle aged women and one man. Do I not understand the concept of random?
 
shuttlt said:
It's so obvious that I feel silly pointing it out, but surely this argument goes both ways? Perhaps there is some pathological reason why you are convinced of their innocence?
Click to expand...

The superficial argument is that there is no difference.

However, they are in jail. The only possible motivation for the guilters to argue that the decision is correct is to protect their fragile egos.

Conversely, the supporters of the Knoxes and Raffaele are trying to help with the argument for their release. Furthermore, the supporters of the Knoxes and Raffaele are tired of innocent people being incarcerated and are trying to help improve the quality of the judicial systems worldwide.

One side is trying to conserve the present systems. The other side is trying to improve them.
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoseMontague
Glad to know he is not disputing she wrote it in the presence of the penitentiary police.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by platonov
He doesn't need to - its a non-point. The salient issue under discussion was that she didn't withdraw the false accusation.

AK has already answered questions, from CP IIRC, that the memo of the 6th was freely written with no suggestions, duress, 'clips' etc from the cops & it has never been suggested that the 7th was any different.
Click to expand...

I was simply clarifying my comment after your questioning of it when you said:

Quote:
Nor was in written 'in the presence of the police' - it was freely written in prison. Unless you have information that AK or her lawyers never advised the court of.
Click to expand...


That was the issue I was referring to. The other issue you are referring to is an old one that you have brought up several times before with other posters, IIRC, and one that I was not addressing in my response to your questioning of my post.
Click to expand...


No Rose Montague :)

Even on this completely trivial non-point of your invention I'm afraid your argument fails.

The fact that penitentiary police are in the prison environs (as are other prisoners) does not imply that they were in AK's presence when the memo of the 7th was written. That's not even LG's point [or CP's refutation] as I already explained.

It was written in 'total autonomy' as Mignini put it to AK,and this concept was also brought up by Massei, without contradiction from AK or her lawyers.
FM also mentions this memo. Have another look.
 
Last edited:
Justinian2 said:
The superficial argument is that there is no difference.

However, they are in jail. The only possible motivation for the guilters to argue that the decision is correct is to protect their fragile egos.

Conversely, the supporters of the Knoxes and Raffaele are trying to help with the argument for their release. Furthermore, the supporters of the Knoxes and Raffaele are tired of innocent people being incarcerated and are trying to help improve the quality of the judicial systems worldwide.

One side is trying to conserve the present systems. The other side is trying to improve them.
Click to expand...

It could be further observed - as a pattern - that the people that are afraid to be wrong are somehow trying to protect past decisions whether by themselves or others.

The past is important to those with wrongophobia, while the present and future are paramount to those free from wrongophobia.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom